Europe won’t save you: Why e-mail is probably safer in the US

German firms aren't allowed to say anything if they have to hand data over.

Last week, a United States federal appellate court unsealed a set of documents pertaining to Lavabit, the e-mail provider of choice for former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden. The documents show that Lavabit’s founder, Ladar Levison, strongly resisted government pressure that would have resulted in the privacy of all users being compromised as a way to get at Snowden’s e-mail. Levinson went so far as to shutter the company, destroying its servers entirely.

“People using my service trusted me to safeguard their online identities and protect their information,” Levison wrote in a press release last Wednesday. “I simply could not betray that trust.”

The Lavabit case is the best known example of a company willing to go to extreme lengths in order to protect its customers’ privacy. Since Lavabit has fallen (as has Silent Circle's Silent Mail service), many journalists and business people have speculated that foreign e-mail providers might have policies that would theoretically be more resistant to government intrusion, particularly in Europe and especially in Germany and Switzerland, which have strong data protection and privacy laws.

But a closer look at German law in particular reveals that a German e-mail provider certainly wouldn't offer more protection—and would likely offer less—than a similar American e-mail provider.

In recent weeks, I’ve set up e-mail accounts at two alternative mail services, and I'm considering switching away from Gmail to one or both of these companies as my primary personal e-mail account. (Here’s my PGP key.)

While there are many choices out there, we’re going to focus on one American service (Riseup.net) and one German service (Posteo.de) to better understand what foreign privacy policies state and what their legal requirements actually are. I chose Riseup because it's a longstanding US-based alternative for the privacy-minded and Posteo because it's a similarly marketed German alternative. Like nearly every other e-mail provider, both offer POP and IMAP support as well as a webmail interface—but they're very different in the promises that they make.

Clearly, properly encrypted e-mail offers the best security for messages both in transit and at rest. But as many Ars readers who have acted as informal tech support for their non-techy friends and family can attest, relatively few people are going to be encrypting all their e-mails by default anytime soon. So the next best thing might just be to choose an e-mail provider that will collect as little of your information as possible and will not easily turn over what other information it does have, such as IP logs or even user e-mail accounts themselves. (And yes, you can roll your own mail server or have proper hosting—but a lot people want just turnkey e-mail. Again, think about what your family members use.)

“In terms of privacy, anything is better than Google, I'd guess,” Ralf Bendrath, a senior policy advisor to a German member of the European Parliament, told Ars. “In terms of usability, of course not. Everybody has to decide for himself or herself where the priorities are, I guess.”

“Y’know, principles”

Lavabit’s own privacy policy at the time that Snowden was believed to have been using it stated that “premium users” would benefit from having their e-mail secured with “an asymmetric encryption process that guarantees that it can’t be accessed by anyone except the holder of the account password. For these accounts, only the encrypted version of the message is ever saved to disk.”

Lavabit’s policy further stated:

It is also important to know what information Lavabit does NOT store. We do not keep a record of the IP addresses used to access our services (except in the web server logs), and we do not keep a record of what information was accessed during a particular session.

In other words, Lavabit was providing a very user-friendly way to protect its customers' e-mail, even from Lavabit’s own staff, and it appeared to minimize its other data collection.

When you use a location-enabled Google service, we may collect and process information about your actual location, like GPS signals sent by a mobile device. We may also use various technologies to determine location, such as sensor data from your device that may, for example, provide information on nearby Wi-Fi access points and cell towers.

Perhaps as a result of the recent focus on privacy policies like these, I’ve recently noticed a couple of people in my social circles switch from Gmail to Riseup as their primary e-mail provider.

“It's annoying, actually, but y'know, principles,” Jillian C. York, an activist at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, wrote to me recently when I remarked on the change noted in her e-mail signature.

“Two inboxes in Thunderbird is a pain in the ass. I'm constantly sending e-mails from one when I mean to from the other, which—when you address private mailing lists as much as I do—is a real problem.”

And will she be deleting her Gmail account?

“I probably won't,” she said. “Frankly, Gmail is a far better organizer of data than any existing tool, so I'll continue to use it for mailing lists. I am trying to shift all personal correspondence off, though (she says as she replies from Gmail...).”

“We would rather pull the plug”

Many privacy-minded e-mail users have long used Riseup, which since 1999 has described itself as a “friendly autonomous tech collective.” An archived copy of its website in 2000 notes that Riseup.net “offers permanent, free e-mail accounts to individuals and groups who are fighting the good fight against racism, sexism, environmental destruction, homophobia, corporate power, or capitalism.” The company promises:

We will never disclose your e-mail address to anyone without your permission.
We will never include advertising on our website or in your e-mail.
We will never charge for your e-mail account.
We will never go away and leave you without an e-mail account.

The entity behind the site is unknown, but the site's lawyer appears to be Devin Thierot-Orr, a law professor at Seattle University. He was listed as a contact on a press release describing a 2012 seizure of one of Riseup.net's shared servers in New York City.

He was also quoted in a 2010 story in the New York Times saying that Riseup was “started with a handful of accounts on a few donated PCs stashed in someone’s basement,” and that “ten years later, we are still volunteer-driven and have a large user base from all over the world.”

When Ars tried to contact Thierot-Orr, his voicemail said he was out on paternity leave, and he did not respond to a request for comment by e-mail.

Still, Riseup’s privacy policy clearly states that the group will take an aggressive stance: “We will actively fight any attempt to force Riseup Networks to disclose user information or logs.”

And it explicitly says that it would sooner commit a Lavabit-style shutdown than submit to government or court orders. “We will do everything in our power to protect the data of social movements and activists, short of extended incarceration,” the group wrote in an August 2013 newsletter. “We would rather pull the plug than submit to repressive surveillance by our government, or any government. We are doing everything we can, as quickly as possible, to forge forward with options that would prevent us from having to shut down, in case we are faced with making such a decision.”

So what’s the catch? Well, for one thing, Riseup only offers a pretty small amount of data storage.

Quota: Your quota will start at 25 megabytes and may increase over time. We have less storage space than most commercial providers because we do not believe in continuously throwing away good hardware to buy new hardware. Also, fast, high quality, redundant disk storage is very expensive.

When I signed up, Riseup actually gave me 92 megabytes of storage. That’s OK for now, but I’m certainly not going to be sending huge attachments with it anytime soon. Anyway, I’ve got Dropbox, WeTransfer, and other related services that I can use as backup if necessary. As Riseup reminds me: “If you increase your quota, we need you to increase your contribution!”

121 Reader Comments

Choosing a country for your email provider-Not hosted in your own country-Exclude the big players in international politics/economy/military US, China, Russia, EU, Israel, UK...-Favor countries with interest in political neutrality-Also avoid lack of government oversight and tech laws, abuse may come from your provider as well.

It is pure, self-serving fiction that total surveillance could provide total security.

Who's saying that? Not me.

What I'm saying, or at least what I believe, is that surveillance is integral to a just, fair and safe society. We have enemies - from burglars flogging their ill-gotten gains to corporate crooks guilty of insider dealing and investment scams to terrorists and agents of foreign/enemy powers stealing national security secrets. Having the technical means to find, identify and prosecute these enemies - and equally therefore deny them the advantages of modern technology, including the internet - makes sense. It's a desirable situation.

What makes it risky is when that surveillance power is mis-used. To date, I'm not aware of any egregious misuses of the powers of the NSA, GCHQ, BND etc... yes, there's "LOVEINT" and possible violations (depending on interpretation) of the 4th Amendment (but let's not put the US Constitution on a pedestal...) but where are democratic forces being subjugated by the state? Snowden was, and remains, a traitor who broke important US laws so don't tell me that the DOJ or whoever were wrong to try and access Lavabit's data. Privacy advocates might not like it, but I don't see the rise of a new Stasi-esque police state in the US. Do you?

If you want issues with totalitarianism in the US, take a close look at the Supreme Court's judgement that campaign contributions are constitutionally protected free speech. Of course, I won't hold my breath waiting for someone to argue that the 1st Amendment should be changed... (or the 4th).

There is absolutely no way a free individual can happen to justify any type of content banning or ideas, because people are supposed to be free to believe what they want. Ideas by their own do not harm people, its people that act on violence of those ideas that do. If a government happens to think some ideas are wrong right in advance they are not far from Minority Report where they actually think they can predict the future and your actions. They actually decide what is good or bad for you think.

In the past books where burned and people send to execution for allot of reasons, all of them based on believes. Today they make them illegal or send people to jail, again based on ideas.

This is where the US is so different vs Europe which is almost a police state today.

Just a simple question: why do you speak of "Europe" as if it's a single country? Because 1) that would probably throw a wrench in your argumentation if you don't know that Europe is made of dozens of mosty independent countries and 2) I don't know where specifically you saw a police state.

Aren't you blowing facts out of proportion? It's probably easy to find anecdotes here and there that are sad and shouldn't be tolerated, yes. But deciding that those anecdotes represent some kind of general truth leans a bit toward paranoia. In any case what you described in your post is completely unrelated to real life here as it is now. On the other hand, I agree that it's important that we make sure it stays that way (and correct those untolerable anecdotes when they occur).

Interesting to note what information "Do No Evil" Google chooses to collect! I wonder if it stems from their self-imposed Prime Directive to "Index All Information"? Anyway... I don't care, as I'm not a political activist, criminal or vegetarian Gmail is convenient, so I will keep using it. If Google knows where I live, and what kind of porn I search for it hardly matters to me.

I do wonder why people feel that the US constitution (specifically the 4th amendment) should apply to non-US citizens. I wonder if they also feel the 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms should also apply? Perhaps then we could throw off our US overlords...

I can't myself object to state powers of surveillance quite as much as some do, when I and so many I care for are the beneficiaries of these powers being used. I and everyone I know or who have ever even heard of or suspected of existing have benefitted from law enforcement - who wants criminals? Let's catch them, I say. So if GCHQ feels the need to read my e-mails to be sure I'm not planning on bombing a vegetarian cafe then I'm fine with that. And if one day I completely lose it and actually plan on bombing a vegetarian meet and decide to tell someone about it first by e-mail, then I hope I'm caught before I carry out the dastardly deed. I like vegetarians, and wouldn't want them to be the victim of a (terrible) crime.

OTOH, bacon. Erm, where was I? Ah yes, US-style anti-government paranoia and the need to organise cats anarchists against The Man without Him finding out about it and sending in SWAT teams to, er, tell us we're very naughty or something. Yeah, that's it.

Because treating other people badly is a bad way to start anything? Caution is one thing, complete contempt is another. (My personal desire: leaving a place slightly better than when I found it.) Treating foreigners with contempt because they are foreigners is anathema to that concept.) Oh, not extending values you hold dear for you and yours eventually means you lose the very values you hold dear.*

Now, reciprocating to people who obviously have treated you with contempt or are likely to do so in the immediate future is another thing. We aren't being given many if at all statistics on the effectiveness verses the efficiency of these wide scale practices. We have no idea that scanning Fanny-Mae's email does any good, but we have plenty of evidence to say it helps barely a tittle and is wide open to abuse.**

There may be some that are actually outraged, but for myself it is more I need to speak up against unfair or ill-informed policies or it will only get worse in the long term, rather than an actual emotional response. Online discussions are a dry-run to talking and debating the merits of policies within my own circle.***

* I.e., FISA et al in the Land of the Free.** See ** I know I'm unlikely to ever be a significant mover & shaker on any topic let alone on this subject. But whatever I do [or don't do] adds to the inertia, and that is my only intention.

^^I'm not sure why the 4th Amendment etc only applies to US citizens whether at home or abroad, and not just to 'people on US soil' regardless of citizenship so that's an interesting question in itself. It's odd perhaps that the US government makes a particular legal distinction, that is to say an explicit one, between its citizens and those of other countries but in practice it's hardly unusual - or unfair - for governments to act in favour of their own citizens and thus to discriminate accordingly. Two sides of the same coin, really.

You allege 'complete contempt' but where is this being shown? how is it either contemptuous or complete? I'm afraid I don't see why you say these things. I don't think global surveillance capabilities are contemptuous and I think it remains to be demonstrated that they are per se harmful. I've not been harmed by Gmail's scanning of my e-mail texts to enable targetted advertising - I consented to that in any case, and I've seen more useful, relevant ads in Gmail than most anywhere else. Although I'd be happier to be without them, I can't complain when Google is providing me with a FREE e-mail service of considerable quality and utility. Why they collect quite so much unrelated info about me is another matter though, but apparently not a consititutional or legal one (in the US, not so sure about the UK or (other) EU countries where data protection laws are far stronger). But now we're veering off topic... I've also not been harmed by Echelon, Prism, etc. to my knowledge. Can you show where I have?

I guess the issue there is 'data retention' and then who gets to see/access it - but at least as long as its relevant this has been standard, uncontroversial and publicly beneficial practise for decades at least (see: telephone records).

Anyway... I can't agree with the 'teh ebils' reaction coming from so many.

Use BlueWin, the free email service provided by the national telco of Switzerland (Swisscom). It has been around for many many years, is bound by the laws of Switzerland, and likely a lot safer from the hands of the Americans compared to German providers.

Maybe we need locally hosted email? My home connection is reliable enough. Add an encrypted copy of the data in the cloud as backup.

Last I heard an MX record has to have a static IP address. Is that the case or can you use a dynamic DNS service? I'm close to pulling the trigger on converting one of my old PCs to a server and hosting my own mail would prevent a lot of the Google privacy abuse.

MX records don't have to be tied to a specific IP. You can map an MX record to any domain/machine name which can be managed with a dynamic IP, so long as your IP is kept up to date.

Various service providers allow you to map your dynamic IP to a DNS routable name. Many consumer grade internet routers already include a feature that supports updating the dynamic IP services (I know Linksys firmware and DD-WRT do).

Trying to remain anonymous and trying to remain private are two different things. Anonymous and private are very hard to do effectively / correctly, almost to the point of being mutually exclusive.

You can do private (but not anonymous) by simply hosting your own mail server on a private computer in your home. Enable TLS/SSL on your server for all incoming/outgoing connections. Besides setting up the server you need to get yourself a domain name, register it, and setup dynamic IP updates and routing services to get your MX record routed to your server... The DNS service provider I use means it doesn't matter if my home ISP blocks port 25 - my provider lets me use an alternate port for outgoing mail. My provider's servers also work as a mail relay, so my outgoing emails don't get classified as spam. The servier provider I use also provides a backup redelivery service, so if my ISP goes down for a bit any email I "miss" gets redelivered when I'm back up.

I've been running my own mail server on a machine in my home this way for 6+ years. I think I've been down for no more than a week over this time. It isn't hard to do, costs me ~$120/yr for domain registration and services (I host a couple of my own domains).

If someone wants to access my email they have to serve me, personally, with a search warrant or whatever, cause there are no 3rd parties holding my email.

I think dynamic DNS would be okay, but you can’t run a server because major ISPs block port 25. E.g., Comcast. To get around this, you have to find an ISP that doesn’t block it (and some of those still have a policy against running servers on your home network); or pay more for business-grade Internet service, in which case you’ll have a static IP anyway.

.. or use the submission port 587 that's not blocked by pretty much any ISP, at least where I live.

I think dynamic DNS would be okay, but you can’t run a server because major ISPs block port 25. E.g., Comcast. To get around this, you have to find an ISP that doesn’t block it (and some of those still have a policy against running servers on your home network); or pay more for business-grade Internet service, in which case you’ll have a static IP anyway.

.. or use the submission port 587 that's not blocked by pretty much any ISP, at least where I live.

You need port 25 if you expect to receive mail. There is no way to specify an alternate port for incoming SMTP connections. 587 and 465 are for authenticated clients to send outgoing mail.

That is where the mail relay service comes in... I can specify alternate ports for their server to deliver incoming and receive outgoing mail to/from my server. I remap the alternate port to 25 with my home router for incoming mail.

Use BlueWin, the free email service provided by the national telco of Switzerland (Swisscom). It has been around for many many years, is bound by the laws of Switzerland, and likely a lot safer from the hands of the Americans compared to German providers.

By hosting email outside the country, forcing your email to cross international borders any number of times both sending and receiving, how does this not simply shift the surveillance oversight from one government organization to another?

Every article on arstechnica that is in any way US related makes me like this site less and less. At first I thought this was a site, where intelligent people would write articles with a diverse opinion. But this one was a real disappointment. Why does it always have to be "we are the best 'cause 'merrica"? Like many other have said, not everyone is a US citizen and atleast the German law treats everyone like a human being.

So long as Germany does not have a FISA type court, so long as requests for account information go through a proper real court of law instead of a FISA court, for US citizens Germany is head and shoulders above a US-based email service.

For non-US citizens and non-US residents, US companies are not even allowed to ask for a warrant before searching our data.

A German email service will at least extend human rights to us foreigners and demand a court order.

1. Who you are makes a difference. The USA regards that human rights only apply to US persons (US citizens and US residents).

So a US-based email service operating under US law denies the rest of us any human rights protection.

2. Who are you worried about?

What are the chances that the German police will want to spy on an ordinary law abiding person not in Germany?

Whereas the USA has global ambitions of spying on everyone everywhere.

Not true. The US will spy on you if you happen to have a desire to build bombs and be linked to terrorists. Germany will spy on you if you happen to type "Hitler" in Youtube. They will not even go as far as ban videos, some which are history videos but they will also track and flag German users looking certain websites online, this is not even a secret and you can find references in Wikipedia about Internet censorship, but what most users don´t know if the huge spying systems on ISP and providers in Europe.

The same is true if you look "Scientology" related data and this are just 2 examples.

So how exactly do you think this is better? One is spying over political reasons, they are afraid or right extremism, even just people doing research on the Internet or looking history facts. The second is for religious motives because even if you think Scientology believers are nuts anyone is free to believe what they want.

Your comment is ridiculous because in Germany police will even send people to jail that happen to have a WW2 ring-tone on their cellphone, (look up in Google)

Its funny how Germans always say they are the most democratic and free country and when you confront them with this real facts, they say, ok but its only those specific subjects as they where some kind of excuse.

You see the difference? In the US and even in the rest of most countries, people are free to believe and speak what they want or think if they are not harming anyone. Ideas are free, if they are communist, or nazis, or muslims, or jews, or happen to think the government is evil or believe in aliens. They are all free to do so.

I just pointed some real facts that you cannot possible deny because they happen to be true and German ISPs will not only go as far as ban some of those contents because they think they are wrong for their internet users but even go as far as report them to the police. Yes that is right. If Cyrus Farivar happens to be in Germany as a reporter making a research on ww2, and happens to be looking videos in Youtube or typing on on his laptop in the hotel, all kind of red flags will start in place and censor content but if he insists enough they will even think he is a possible danger to their government and actually send the police to his hotel room.

Last time I checked Mein Kampf is also illegal in Germany, the same book that is actually used and for history lessons in Universities in Israel but in Germany books happen to be illegal as as well.

There is absolutely no way a free individual can happen to justify any type of content banning or ideas, because people are supposed to be free to believe what they want. Ideas by their own do not harm people, its people that act on violence of those ideas that do. If a government happens to think some ideas are wrong right in advance they are not far from Minority Report where they actually think they can predict the future and your actions. They actually decide what is good or bad for you think.

In the past books where burned and people send to execution for allot of reasons, all of them based on believes. Today they make them illegal or send people to jail, again based on ideas.

This is where the US is so different vs Europe which is almost a police state today.

Have you ever been to Europe? I suggest you travel to the UK, then to Russia and finally to southern Italy and tell me if you still like to make blanket statements.

How will traveling to Europe change his point?

How about you are more specific with your exception of his points, before you ask him to travel the world, like that's going to add to the conversation somehow ?!?!

Germany will spy on you if you happen to type "Hitler" in Youtube.[...]The same is true if you look "Scientology" related data and this are just 2 examples.

Source? I couldn't find anything to back up that claim. Wikipedia, which you mentioned, doesn't seem to have anything on it, as as far as I can tell. Also, I've yet to come across a blocked historical video. German law explicitly allows public display of Nazi symbols in the context of artworks (e.g. movies) or for scholarly reasons (e.g. Wikipedia or school textbooks).

Footage of Nazi rallies and similar material is freely available on YouTube, the same goes for Hitler's speeches and all that kind of stuff. German laws do make it illegal to publicly deny the reality of the holocaust, and videos where people are doing that will probably get blocked, but they don't prevent you from learning and researching the facts.

Quote:

Your comment is ridiculous because in Germany police will even send people to jail that happen to have a WW2 ring-tone on their cellphone, (look up in Google)

How does this have anything to do with Internet surveillance? The guy in question had a Hitler speech as a ring-tone on his phone (I don't think he "happened to have it" on there, there was probably a conscious decision involved), someone overheard it and called the police. You might disagree with the law that makes this illegal, or with the police getting involved, but this whole affair played out without any secret court orders, wiretaps or anything like that.

Quote:

In the US and even in the rest of most countries, people are free to believe and speak what they want or think if they are not harming anyone. Ideas are free, if they are communist, or nazis, or muslims, or jews, or happen to think the government is evil or believe in aliens. They are all free to do so.

You cannot get arrested for thought-crimes in Germany, either. Holding nazi, communist, or radical islamist views is not illegal. True: Being an outspoken extremist of any kind will probably get you on the government's radar, but this goes for the US, as well. There's no advantage for either side there.

Quote:

If Cyrus Farivar happens to be in Germany as a reporter making a research on ww2, and happens to be looking videos in Youtube or typing on on his laptop in the hotel, all kind of red flags will start in place and censor content but if he insists enough they will even think he is a possible danger to their government and actually send the police to his hotel room.

Do you have any sources for that claim? Without evidence it's just FUD. I've never heard of anyone getting arrested for doing research on the Nazis or WW2, or generally just reading and watching that kind of material.I'll say it again: Publicly displaying certain symbols can be illegal, depending on the context. Searching for, or looking at them is not, and can't be grounds for an arrest.

Quote:

Last time I checked Mein Kampf is also illegal in Germany, the same book that is actually used and for history lessons in Universities in Israel but in Germany books happen to be illegal as as well.

Flat out wrong. The state of Bavaria holds the German copyright on the book and uses that to keep the book off the national market. It is being used in universities, though, you can legally own it or import it from other countries (where the Bavarian copyright claim does not apply for complicated legal reasons) and, from 2016 on, it will be legal to print and sell it in Germany, as well, since the copyright will have expired.

Feel free to disagree with the state of German law, but do get your facts straight, please.

Its funny how some people defend some things and they say I don´t have the facts right. If you want to look to the other side, ok...

The state of Bavaria holds the rights on purpose and they are the ones that will legally act to ban the book. You can paint it in any color you want but the end result is the same or not?

You cannot buy the book in Germany, and people where send to jail for less than just asking on bookstores or trying to sell it or had hefty fees to pay. Otherwise please tell me so, maybe we can find it in Ebay Germany right or in some bookstore.

That article was far longer, but it seems it was edited or is controlled as it included allot more "real" cases of censorship. I don´t have time or energy to look around but everything I posted before is real it was on the press worldwide for several cases, not just one.

If you are so sure about this, why don´t you go on the streets in Germany and raise your right arm and lets see how long it takes until the police takes you with them. I dare any German to even try this on a public place, if they are so 100% sure their country is free and everything I posted is wrong. The truth is you and other commenter's know exactly what will happen, they will be afraid of doing so. Afraid of their state and law enforcements agencies. How exactly is that not a police a state? One that is tries to ban book, bans swastikas even from toys or publications because they think that symbol is evil itself and will send people to jail if they don´t believe in the holocaust or dare to speak out with anything that is not "state" approved.

Isn't also Scientology illegal in Germany? Should not a free country allow freedom of religion? Maybe I should also point that out on Wikipedia, because there it even says "German domestic intelligence services have monitored the organization's activities".

Yes that is right. Intelligence services in Germany are spying on religions because they where afraid they can spread, probably just like they fear nazis will raise from death. I don´t know what you think but in my book a government that tries ideas from spreading, is a dangerous government because nobody should tell their citizens what they can or can´t think. If someone does something illegal or dangerous, you already have laws, but making new laws to ban ideas or content is usually what non democratic governments does.

I don´t think many understand that I don´t defend this actions. Im attacking what their government does to avoid them which is even worst than what they try to avoid in the first place. Some people in other parts of the planet cannot possible understand why a symbol or a flag could send someone to legal problems. Their minds cannot understand so because they where born in a free country. Today is just 2 or 3 subjects, but if the banning of this works, they could expand in them in the future to include more and more stuff they don´t want. Maybe its bitcoins tomorrow, then maybe its pornography, then maybe in the future its even gaming. Anyone would think that is just absurd, but that is exactly what other countries and people think that is absurd to ban Nazis or Scientology as well.

Worst case is that other countries have started to copy them in Europe. And such an evil should never spread. Governments starting to enable laws to shut down people from speaking ideas. That is nothing but banning free expression and flow of information.

1. Who you are makes a difference. The USA regards that human rights only apply to US persons (US citizens and US residents).

So a US-based email service operating under US law denies the rest of us any human rights protection.

2. Who are you worried about?

What are the chances that the German police will want to spy on an ordinary law abiding person not in Germany?

Whereas the USA has global ambitions of spying on everyone everywhere.

Not true. The US will spy on you if you happen to have a desire to build bombs and be linked to terrorists. Germany will spy on you if you happen to type "Hitler" in Youtube. They will not even go as far as ban videos, some which are history videos but they will also track and flag German users looking certain websites online, this is not even a secret and you can find references in Wikipedia about Internet censorship, but what most users don´t know if the huge spying systems on ISP and providers in Europe.

The same is true if you look "Scientology" related data and this are just 2 examples.

So how exactly do you think this is better? One is spying over political reasons, they are afraid or right extremism, even just people doing research on the Internet or looking history facts. The second is for religious motives because even if you think Scientology believers are nuts anyone is free to believe what they want.

Your comment is ridiculous because in Germany police will even send people to jail that happen to have a WW2 ring-tone on their cellphone, (look up in Google)

Its funny how Germans always say they are the most democratic and free country and when you confront them with this real facts, they say, ok but its only those specific subjects as they where some kind of excuse.

You see the difference? In the US and even in the rest of most countries, people are free to believe and speak what they want or think if they are not harming anyone. Ideas are free, if they are communist, or nazis, or muslims, or jews, or happen to think the government is evil or believe in aliens. They are all free to do so.

I just pointed some real facts that you cannot possible deny because they happen to be true and German ISPs will not only go as far as ban some of those contents because they think they are wrong for their internet users but even go as far as report them to the police. Yes that is right. If Cyrus Farivar happens to be in Germany as a reporter making a research on ww2, and happens to be looking videos in Youtube or typing on on his laptop in the hotel, all kind of red flags will start in place and censor content but if he insists enough they will even think he is a possible danger to their government and actually send the police to his hotel room.

Last time I checked Mein Kampf is also illegal in Germany, the same book that is actually used and for history lessons in Universities in Israel but in Germany books happen to be illegal as as well.

There is absolutely no way a free individual can happen to justify any type of content banning or ideas, because people are supposed to be free to believe what they want. Ideas by their own do not harm people, its people that act on violence of those ideas that do. If a government happens to think some ideas are wrong right in advance they are not far from Minority Report where they actually think they can predict the future and your actions. They actually decide what is good or bad for you think.

In the past books where burned and people send to execution for allot of reasons, all of them based on believes. Today they make them illegal or send people to jail, again based on ideas.

This is where the US is so different vs Europe which is almost a police state today.

Have you ever been to Europe? I suggest you travel to the UK, then to Russia and finally to southern Italy and tell me if you still like to make blanket statements.

How will traveling to Europe change his point?

How about you are more specific with your exception of his points, before you ask him to travel the world, like that's going to add to the conversation somehow ?!?!

Its not the first time someone says "You probably don´t know Germany or Europe", or I should travel there...

I don´t know why some people assume I never went to Europe. I traveled to at least the most popular European countries several times and I know Germany from end to end, even better than most Germans.

So if someone thinks I speak without knowing, then no, I do know Germany and Europe. Either way, I don´t think that is related to understand something or not. I never was in China but know its a communist regime and I know some of the things their government did, thanks to the news and the global Internet.

I also know what atrocities happen in war zones and never went there either.

I think we all just need to stop worrying and learn to love the Big Gov.

I agree, but this article is 100% correct on something.

Your data is not safer outside the US or outside US companies anymore than it would be inside the US. With the NSA and other stuff allot of international companies and people moved their services to off site datacenters, in particular to Europe and this article just just tries to inform users that some other places it could be the same or even worst.

The NSA stuff was overblown allot, the government does not really care about your content or data, and they only targeted suspects of terrorism. With all what is happening and knowing how US companies act with data, your data would be even more private and secure vs other places. The point of the article is that in Germany some companies don't even need to inform users or can´t reject or deny government request of data as opposed to the US where they can and did several times before. My point was that some content (I posted two examples, religious and political) is considered officially banned and dangerous in Germany, so a government there could not even request data based on this subjects which is FAR worst than the NSA which at least never would request content based on political or religious believes.

Some people and companies assume today the US is risky to have your data hosted while most of them don´t know how much worst it could be in other places. That is the point I tried to make, that in Germany if they have intelligence services looking out for scientology organizations or people trying to buy some history books, then what in the world makes someone think they don´t do the same with digital content.

US = Spied on suspects of terrorist. Data requests can be denied by companies, and its not as easy as it sounds by just requesting it. US allows freedom of speech, never would ban or censorship content on a country wide scale.

Germany = Spies on suspects of terrorist, religious organizations and political groups. Companies HAVE to comply with government requests (probably for anything they want), there is no way to deny them or fight them, they are even not allowed to inform anyone about it, it has to be maintained a secret. It only allows freedom of speech except specific subjects they don´t want (not really free..). Did and does Internet censorship based on content on the Internet and spies on Internet users for specific contents.

If we start to make comparisons with other countries, the US probably has most of the laws in place to protect your data and privacy. And now this is getting even stronger.

Thanks a lot for the article, a very interesting reading. And your central point is of course correct and missed by a large number of people. FWIW, I also tried to spread the word, although likely less successfully so: http://opensource.com/business/13/8/fou ... -providers

Germany in particular is an odd beast. Strong data protection legislation, but a loophole in article 10 of its constitution for secret service activity. And data thus gained is possibly not under protection of the 4th amendment even if US citizens were involved. So you're right. Germany means there is likely all the spying, but none of the US specific protections for US citizens.

Germany also is a little bit of a historic anomaly, though, since much of this is still fallout from the 2nd world war and the cold war times. So Sweden or Norway for instance would fare better as EU countries.

And I think Smári McCarthy has a point about riseup, although I think the bigger concern is that you're ultimately relying for your privacy on the willingness of others to sacrifice their livelihood and freedom. And I think that his approach is also ignoring some of the same reasons this kind of thing hasn't already become mainstream. For some reference: http://tante.cc/2013/05/20/host-your-own-is-cynical/

So compared to a layman's "host your own" I think riseup is likely more secure and at least they seem to approach it professionally enough, e.g. they appear to be running their own hardware, see:

That kind of record is typically indicative of a colocation facility where the provider has some kind of physical control over where the data is stored and what happens to the machines: Otherwise not even the provider would know whether their SSL certificate had been copied off their machines and there could be any number of men in the middle for all communications. Not all providers that claim to provide privacy hold up to that simple test.

So you can easily fall below the legal level on technical grounds. Ultimately I think the lesson here is: You can never be safer than the legal environment where you host your data, and possibly what local law enforcement can compell you to do.

And there is one country which you do not explore that has a much stronger legislative framework than most other countries, which is Switzerland. Abusing data is a criminal offence, no exceptions. Even if the CEO of a hosting business would learn of abuse among their staff and not report it to the proper authorities, they would likely look at jail time.

Secondly, unlike in the US or Germany, *all* requests must go through a judge and be publicly documented in anonymized form and with proper attribution to the criminal code. Secret service has been explicitly stripped of all powers inside the country and there is no other legal way for foreign powers to obtain the data than through the international assistance treaties where requests for information must hold up under *Swiss* law.

So indeed hosting in Germany is likely worse than in the US.

Hosting in Switzerland is however orders of magnitude better.

Both are in Europe, so perhaps it would be better to say "Why some parts of Europe won't save you". But I understand that's a whole lot less flashy.

Other countries may spy as much but I've never seen any free-world government as contemptuous of its people as that of the US. I lived in another country for half of my life before moving to the US. There is an undercurrent of evil here where those in power consider everybody else, even those they represent, as the enemy. I've never experienced it in any other country. I am truly fearful for my well-being living here as a result.

How could you have "experienced" anything similar if you have only lived in two countries? Why are you also still in America if you feel the way you do?

Thanks a lot for the article, a very interesting reading. And your central point is of course correct and missed by a large number of people. FWIW, I also tried to spread the word, although likely less successfully so: http://opensource.com/business/13/8/fou ... -providers

Germany in particular is an odd beast. Strong data protection legislation, but a loophole in article 10 of its constitution for secret service activity. And data thus gained is possibly not under protection of the 4th amendment even if US citizens were involved. So you're right. Germany means there is likely all the spying, but none of the US specific protections for US citizens.

Germany also is a little bit of a historic anomaly, though, since much of this is still fallout from the 2nd world war and the cold war times. So Sweden or Norway for instance would fare better as EU countries.

And I think Smári McCarthy has a point about riseup, although I think the bigger concern is that you're ultimately relying for your privacy on the willingness of others to sacrifice their livelihood and freedom. And I think that his approach is also ignoring some of the same reasons this kind of thing hasn't already become mainstream. For some reference: http://tante.cc/2013/05/20/host-your-own-is-cynical/

So compared to a layman's "host your own" I think riseup is likely more secure and at least they seem to approach it professionally enough, e.g. they appear to be running their own hardware, see:

That kind of record is typically indicative of a colocation facility where the provider has some kind of physical control over where the data is stored and what happens to the machines: Otherwise not even the provider would know whether their SSL certificate had been copied off their machines and there could be any number of men in the middle for all communications. Not all providers that claim to provide privacy hold up to that simple test.

So you can easily fall below the legal level on technical grounds. Ultimately I think the lesson here is: You can never be safer than the legal environment where you host your data, and possibly what local law enforcement can compell you to do.

And there is one country which you do not explore that has a much stronger legislative framework than most other countries, which is Switzerland. Abusing data is a criminal offence, no exceptions. Even if the CEO of a hosting business would learn of abuse among their staff and not report it to the proper authorities, they would likely look at jail time.

Secondly, unlike in the US or Germany, *all* requests must go through a judge and be publicly documented in anonymized form and with proper attribution to the criminal code. Secret service has been explicitly stripped of all powers inside the country and there is no other legal way for foreign powers to obtain the data than through the international assistance treaties where requests for information must hold up under *Swiss* law.

So indeed hosting in Germany is likely worse than in the US.

Hosting in Switzerland is however orders of magnitude better.

Both are in Europe, so perhaps it would be better to say "Why some parts of Europe won't save you". But I understand that's a whole lot less flashy.

Small correction. Norway isn't in EU. And I agree that we shouldn't treat Europe as a one entity. There are 50 countries in Europe. The countries aren't monoliths either. North Italy is nothing like the south for example. Germany is also very specific country, as you said. The country just don't want hisory to repeat itself, this is why they have strict anti nazi policy, though the Holocaust Denial laws are in more countries. The history still affects some aspects of life in Europe, but generally everyone moved on. The laws in some countries, along with institutions like EU that promote integration are to ensure we won't make any mistakes in the future that caused 2 big wars.

So Farivar touts this hyper-partisan Riseup email service that offers service to individuals and groups who are fighting the good fight against racism, sexism, environmental destruction, homophobia, corporate power, or capitalism? What if their customers are using their service to promote the very opposite? Will Riseup know that and stop it? If so, it's not a 'privacy' service that any sane person would use considering their political dogma would likely override the concept of absolute privacy. In fact, reading their 'social contract', it states, "Riseup.net affirms common cause and solidarity with a broad spectrum of the political left. However, there are some things which we cannot support. We ask that you do not use riseup.net services to advocate any of the following: Support for capitalism, domination, or hierarchy. The idea that class oppression supersedes race or gender oppression. A vanguard strategy for revolution. Population control."

Strange that Ars would recommend this bizarre service.

It's obvious. It just means that Ars supports much or all of their "political dogma." That is, so long as they can't make a story out of one of their readers by exposing their identity as an Ars poster, as they did with Mr. Snowden.

Like with most media, most tech sites steer heavily towards the left so I'm not surprised they missed the obvious contradiction and irony of their recommendation as it relates to safe e-mail. I'm more curious to hear what Riseup's solution to population growth is. I'd have to get some popcorn for that one.

So Farivar touts this hyper-partisan Riseup email service that offers service to individuals and groups who are fighting the good fight against racism, sexism, environmental destruction, homophobia, corporate power, or capitalism? What if their customers are using their service to promote the very opposite? Will Riseup know that and stop it? If so, it's not a 'privacy' service that any sane person would use considering their political dogma would likely override the concept of absolute privacy. In fact, reading their 'social contract', it states, "Riseup.net affirms common cause and solidarity with a broad spectrum of the political left. However, there are some things which we cannot support. We ask that you do not use riseup.net services to advocate any of the following: Support for capitalism, domination, or hierarchy. The idea that class oppression supersedes race or gender oppression. A vanguard strategy for revolution. Population control."

Strange that Ars would recommend this bizarre service.

It's obvious. It just means that Ars supports much or all of their "political dogma." That is, so long as they can't make a story out of one of their readers by exposing their identity as an Ars poster, as they did with Mr. Snowden.

Like with most media, most tech sites steer heavily towards the left so I'm not surprised they missed the obvious contradiction and irony of their recommendation as it relates to safe e-mail. I'm more curious to hear what Riseup's solution to population growth is. I'd have to get some popcorn for that one.

Oooo! The RED SCARE! Them commies are out to getcha boy! RUN! Them commies are'a commin'!MADNESS! Water that lights up wood! Cats and dogs living together!

I just loooove watching the right fight it with the left. We can't have too much of a balanced thing now can we?

1. Who you are makes a difference. The USA regards that human rights only apply to US persons (US citizens and US residents).

So a US-based email service operating under US law denies the rest of us any human rights protection.

2. Who are you worried about?

What are the chances that the German police will want to spy on an ordinary law abiding person not in Germany?

Whereas the USA has global ambitions of spying on everyone everywhere.

Not true. The US will spy on you if you happen to have a desire to build bombs and be linked to terrorists. Germany will spy on you if you happen to type "Hitler" in Youtube. They will not even go as far as ban videos, some which are history videos but they will also track and flag German users looking certain websites online, this is not even a secret and you can find references in Wikipedia about Internet censorship, but what most users don´t know if the huge spying systems on ISP and providers in Europe.

The same is true if you look "Scientology" related data and this are just 2 examples.

So how exactly do you think this is better? One is spying over political reasons, they are afraid or right extremism, even just people doing research on the Internet or looking history facts. The second is for religious motives because even if you think Scientology believers are nuts anyone is free to believe what they want.

Your comment is ridiculous because in Germany police will even send people to jail that happen to have a WW2 ring-tone on their cellphone, (look up in Google)

Its funny how Germans always say they are the most democratic and free country and when you confront them with this real facts, they say, ok but its only those specific subjects as they where some kind of excuse.

You see the difference? In the US and even in the rest of most countries, people are free to believe and speak what they want or think if they are not harming anyone. Ideas are free, if they are communist, or nazis, or muslims, or jews, or happen to think the government is evil or believe in aliens. They are all free to do so.

I just pointed some real facts that you cannot possible deny because they happen to be true and German ISPs will not only go as far as ban some of those contents because they think they are wrong for their internet users but even go as far as report them to the police. Yes that is right. If Cyrus Farivar happens to be in Germany as a reporter making a research on ww2, and happens to be looking videos in Youtube or typing on on his laptop in the hotel, all kind of red flags will start in place and censor content but if he insists enough they will even think he is a possible danger to their government and actually send the police to his hotel room.

Last time I checked Mein Kampf is also illegal in Germany, the same book that is actually used and for history lessons in Universities in Israel but in Germany books happen to be illegal as as well.

There is absolutely no way a free individual can happen to justify any type of content banning or ideas, because people are supposed to be free to believe what they want. Ideas by their own do not harm people, its people that act on violence of those ideas that do. If a government happens to think some ideas are wrong right in advance they are not far from Minority Report where they actually think they can predict the future and your actions. They actually decide what is good or bad for you think.

In the past books where burned and people send to execution for allot of reasons, all of them based on believes. Today they make them illegal or send people to jail, again based on ideas.

This is where the US is so different vs Europe which is almost a police state today.

Have you ever been to Europe? I suggest you travel to the UK, then to Russia and finally to southern Italy and tell me if you still like to make blanket statements.

How will traveling to Europe change his point?

How about you are more specific with your exception of his points, before you ask him to travel the world, like that's going to add to the conversation somehow ?!?!

In this case all his points were the insane ramblings of a person that obviously doesn't know anything about Europe. Visiting would help, though watching something else than Fox news might help as well.

Thanks a Germany also is a little bit of a historic anomaly, though, since much of this is still fallout from the 2nd world war and the cold war times. So Sweden or Norway for instance would fare better as EU countries.

Norway is not an EU country. Stop picking random countries to spin the facts around if don't know anything about them, all it does is reveal that you don't know what you are talking about..

Thanks a Germany also is a little bit of a historic anomaly, though, since much of this is still fallout from the 2nd world war and the cold war times. So Sweden or Norway for instance would fare better as EU countries.

Norway is not an EU country. Stop picking random countries to spin the facts around if don't know anything about them, all it does is reveal that you don't know what you are talking about..

^^I'm not sure why the 4th Amendment etc only applies to US citizens whether at home or abroad, and not just to 'people on US soil' regardless of citizenship so that's an interesting question in itself. It's odd perhaps that the US government makes a particular legal distinction, that is to say an explicit one, between its citizens and those of other countries but in practice it's hardly unusual - or unfair - for governments to act in favour of their own citizens and thus to discriminate accordingly. Two sides of the same coin, really.

You allege 'complete contempt' but where is this being shown? how is it either contemptuous or complete? I'm afraid I don't see why you say these things. I don't think global surveillance capabilities are contemptuous and I think it remains to be demonstrated that they are per se harmful. I've not been harmed by Gmail's scanning of my e-mail texts to enable targetted advertising - I consented to that in any case, and I've seen more useful, relevant ads in Gmail than most anywhere else. Although I'd be happier to be without them, I can't complain when Google is providing me with a FREE e-mail service of considerable quality and utility. Why they collect quite so much unrelated info about me is another matter though, but apparently not a consititutional or legal one (in the US, not so sure about the UK or (other) EU countries where data protection laws are far stronger). But now we're veering off topic... I've also not been harmed by Echelon, Prism, etc. to my knowledge. Can you show where I have?

I guess the issue there is 'data retention' and then who gets to see/access it - but at least as long as its relevant this has been standard, uncontroversial and publicly beneficial practise for decades at least (see: telephone records).

Anyway... I can't agree with the 'teh ebils' reaction coming from so many.

Ignoring the very principles in law these programs are supposedly setup to protect isn't considered harmful, important? The program has become more important than the purpose. :scratch: The program may as well not exist because they aren't protecting their citizens any more, they are using citizens to sustain themselves. The very reason the USA was created no longer applies.

I don't know how to go about saying the many different ways to say the above is self-evident to me. If the process of the USA government is more important than the people that make up that government, I'd agree with the Libertarians for a change. It is no longer "For the people by the people".

So Farivar touts this hyper-partisan Riseup email service that offers service to individuals and groups who are fighting the good fight against racism, sexism, environmental destruction, homophobia, corporate power, or capitalism? What if their customers are using their service to promote the very opposite? Will Riseup know that and stop it? If so, it's not a 'privacy' service that any sane person would use considering their political dogma would likely override the concept of absolute privacy. In fact, reading their 'social contract', it states, "Riseup.net affirms common cause and solidarity with a broad spectrum of the political left. However, there are some things which we cannot support. We ask that you do not use riseup.net services to advocate any of the following: Support for capitalism, domination, or hierarchy. The idea that class oppression supersedes race or gender oppression. A vanguard strategy for revolution. Population control."

Strange that Ars would recommend this bizarre service.

It's obvious. It just means that Ars supports much or all of their "political dogma." That is, so long as they can't make a story out of one of their readers by exposing their identity as an Ars poster, as they did with Mr. Snowden.

Like with most media, most tech sites steer heavily towards the left so I'm not surprised they missed the obvious contradiction and irony of their recommendation as it relates to safe e-mail. I'm more curious to hear what Riseup's solution to population growth is. I'd have to get some popcorn for that one.

Oooo! The RED SCARE! Them commies are out to getcha boy! RUN! Them commies are'a commin'!MADNESS! Water that lights up wood! Cats and dogs living together!

I just loooove watching the right fight it with the left. We can't have too much of a balanced thing now can we?

What's makes you think I'm on the right? Many of my views are what one would consider being on the left. In my post I am stating some simple and obvious truths, such as aligning yourself too strongly to any kind of political party or ideology blinds you.

My post got 5 down votes and no up votes, which is what I expected. I'm sure the down votes will continue and I'm sure you will not be the only one to label me as being from the right. That's what I mean about the general political leanings of sites like this and about being blinded.

^^I'm not sure why the 4th Amendment etc only applies to US citizens whether at home or abroad, and not just to 'people on US soil' regardless of citizenship so that's an interesting question in itself. It's odd perhaps that the US government makes a particular legal distinction, that is to say an explicit one, between its citizens and those of other countries but in practice it's hardly unusual - or unfair - for governments to act in favour of their own citizens and thus to discriminate accordingly. Two sides of the same coin, really.

You allege 'complete contempt' but where is this being shown? how is it either contemptuous or complete? I'm afraid I don't see why you say these things. I don't think global surveillance capabilities are contemptuous and I think it remains to be demonstrated that they are per se harmful. I've not been harmed by Gmail's scanning of my e-mail texts to enable targetted advertising - I consented to that in any case, and I've seen more useful, relevant ads in Gmail than most anywhere else. Although I'd be happier to be without them, I can't complain when Google is providing me with a FREE e-mail service of considerable quality and utility. Why they collect quite so much unrelated info about me is another matter though, but apparently not a consititutional or legal one (in the US, not so sure about the UK or (other) EU countries where data protection laws are far stronger). But now we're veering off topic... I've also not been harmed by Echelon, Prism, etc. to my knowledge. Can you show where I have?

I guess the issue there is 'data retention' and then who gets to see/access it - but at least as long as its relevant this has been standard, uncontroversial and publicly beneficial practise for decades at least (see: telephone records).

Anyway... I can't agree with the 'teh ebils' reaction coming from so many.

Ignoring the very principles in law these programs are supposedly setup to protect isn't considered harmful, important? The program has become more important than the purpose. :scratch: The program may as well not exist because they aren't protecting their citizens any more, they are using citizens to sustain themselves. The very reason the USA was created no longer applies.

I don't know how to go about saying the many different ways to say the above is self-evident to me. If the process of the USA government is more important than the people that make up that government, I'd agree with the Libertarians for a change. It is no longer "For the people by the people".

I am a foreigner [to the USA] and I'm surprised by your reaction.

You need to learn American history, especially during times of war, before you can even begin trying to school an American about his country's values and politics. Even then, tread carefully as you are not American. Disrespect and insult is a fine line for you and other non-Americans.

^^I'm not sure why the 4th Amendment etc only applies to US citizens whether at home or abroad, and not just to 'people on US soil' regardless of citizenship so that's an interesting question in itself. It's odd perhaps that the US government makes a particular legal distinction, that is to say an explicit one, between its citizens and those of other countries but in practice it's hardly unusual - or unfair - for governments to act in favour of their own citizens and thus to discriminate accordingly. Two sides of the same coin, really.

You allege 'complete contempt' but where is this being shown? how is it either contemptuous or complete? I'm afraid I don't see why you say these things. I don't think global surveillance capabilities are contemptuous and I think it remains to be demonstrated that they are per se harmful. I've not been harmed by Gmail's scanning of my e-mail texts to enable targetted advertising - I consented to that in any case, and I've seen more useful, relevant ads in Gmail than most anywhere else. Although I'd be happier to be without them, I can't complain when Google is providing me with a FREE e-mail service of considerable quality and utility. Why they collect quite so much unrelated info about me is another matter though, but apparently not a consititutional or legal one (in the US, not so sure about the UK or (other) EU countries where data protection laws are far stronger). But now we're veering off topic... I've also not been harmed by Echelon, Prism, etc. to my knowledge. Can you show where I have?

I guess the issue there is 'data retention' and then who gets to see/access it - but at least as long as its relevant this has been standard, uncontroversial and publicly beneficial practise for decades at least (see: telephone records).

Anyway... I can't agree with the 'teh ebils' reaction coming from so many.

Ignoring the very principles in law these programs are supposedly setup to protect isn't considered harmful, important? The program has become more important than the purpose. :scratch: The program may as well not exist because they aren't protecting their citizens any more, they are using citizens to sustain themselves. The very reason the USA was created no longer applies.

I don't know how to go about saying the many different ways to say the above is self-evident to me. If the process of the USA government is more important than the people that make up that government, I'd agree with the Libertarians for a change. It is no longer "For the people by the people".

I am a foreigner [to the USA] and I'm surprised by your reaction.

You need to learn American history, especially during times of war, before you can even begin trying to school an American about his country's values and politics. Even then, tread carefully as you are not American. Disrespect and insult is a fine line for you and other non-Americans.

That works both ways and pointing to history and wars is not always simplistically placing the US on the right side of things either but I hope you knew that already.

You need to learn American history, especially during times of war, before you can even begin trying to school an American about his country's values and politics. Even then, tread carefully as you are not American. Disrespect and insult is a fine line for you and other non-Americans.

That appears a rather weird tone, from this end. I explicitly said I didn't know how to school the gp, that from where I stood it all appeared self-evident. I'm more than willing to acknowledge I don't know American history or principles. I can only go on what Americans have told me, aside from my obviously biased reading of the various sources I've experienced up till now.

As for insult... I thought I was the sensitive one. Was it implied in that a foreigner dared respond to an American program in anything less than gushing admiration? If it makes you feel better, I am also less than ecstatic about my own countries similar, if somewhat less well funded, mass surveillance programs. One might even call me critical of them.

Perhaps you were practicing irony? That 'warning' was amusing. "Disrespect and insult is a fine line for you and other non-Americans." Brilliant line.

Its funny how some people defend some things and they say I don´t have the facts right. If you want to look to the other side, ok...

The state of Bavaria holds the rights on purpose and they are the ones that will legally act to ban the book. You can paint it in any color you want but the end result is the same or not?

You cannot buy the book in Germany, and people where send to jail for less than just asking on bookstores or trying to sell it or had hefty fees to pay. Otherwise please tell me so, maybe we can find it in Ebay Germany right or in some bookstore.

To quote Wikipedia:

"Owning and buying the book is legal. Trading in old copies is legal as well, unless it is done in such a fashion as to "promote hatred or war", which is generally illegal. In particular, the unmodified edition is not covered by §86 StGB that forbids dissemination of means of propaganda of unconstitutional organisations, since it is a "pre-constitutional work" and as such cannot be opposed to the free and democratic basic order, according to a 1979 decision of the Federal Court of Justice of Germany."( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mein_Kampf )

Yes, I know that article, and it does not back up your claims that typing "Hitler" into YouTube will get you wire tapped or make the police storm your hotel room.

Quote:

I don´t have time or energy to look around but everything I posted before is real it was on the press worldwide for several cases, not just one.

Please provide at least one example for discussion's sake. It's your claim, so you should be able to back it up.

Quote:

If you are so sure about this, why don´t you go on the streets in Germany and raise your right arm and lets see how long it takes until the police takes you with them.

Doing online research about Nazis != performing the Nazi salute. I explicitly stated that exhibition of certain Nazi symbols (including that salute) is prohibited. They have to prove, though, that you intend to perform the salute. Merely raising the arm won't get you into jail. Again, feel free to disagree with the law about that, but it has exactly nothing to do with wiretapping, it doesn't involve secret laws or courts, and it's not exactly unique. Try shouting out death treats to the president in the US and see what happens. (Even if you're only doing it as a joke.)

BTW: Funny enough, but the bans on Nazi symbols mostly originated with the post-war allied occupation authorities (i.e. Mainly the US): They were afraid Nazism wasn't dead, so they severely limited it's expression.

Quote:

Isn't also Scientology illegal in Germany?

No. There are several major Scientology centers in Germany, and their books are freely available. Scientologists do open advertising in many major cities, including Berlin.

Quote:

Should not a free country allow freedom of religion? Maybe I should also point that out on Wikipedia, because there it even says "German domestic intelligence services have monitored the organization's activities".

The actions of the German domestic intelligence service are controversial within Germany, as well. I'm not going to defend them.

Still: Do quote the next sentence, too, please: "The German government does not recognize Scientology as a religion. It views it as an abusive business masquerading as a religion and believes that it pursues political goals that conflict with the values enshrined in the German constitution."

Scientology is not considered dangerous because it's a religion, it's considered to be something dangerous pretending to be a religion in order to gain special status.

I'm not defending any of these practices, personally I think it's better to educate better to educate people than to ban subjects, but your blowing things way out of proportion with your allegations of a "police state" and lots of half-truths about what is supposedly illegal in Germany. (In fact, today's Germany is much more liberal about these matters than it was 10 or 20 years ago. Swastikas in movies or art aren't a scandal anymore, and the discussion about Scientology has died down, as well.)

When it comes to civil rights, Germany is neither perfect not is it the worst offender. The same goes for the US, btw. In both countries, unfortunately, governments are increasingly abusing their powers, but any discussions about banned symbols or books are red herrings. Feeling like you're all free because you can sport a swastika in the US, is a fallacy.US agencies are spying on their citizens, German agencies are spying on their citizens. (Same goes for most other nations.) Those are the pressing and far more dangerous issues at hand.

I can truly say that anyone searching through my email for nefarious activity would be very, very bored. But i continue to look at alternatives for the principle of the thing.

lol, precisely. Have been on the search for the past few weeks, gawd there is nothing. Neomailbox? Kolab? I don't know but I just moved my calendar and contacts, deleted everything and now n the slooow process of shifting incoming email to other providers, without forwarding it of course. Feels somewhat good and liberating.

No-one should trust German law for much the reasons stated in the article & comments.

I run a stealth startup called Encryptedmail,ch which is about to go into closed beta, we will be running our servers from Swtizerland when we go fully live. Contraty to Lavabit and some of the services mentioned we use end-to-end encryption so that stored emails are kept on our servers in encrypted form with a key know only to the user. These days it's the only option.

Swiss law, unlike German, takes data protection much more seriously and mutual legal assistance won't avail the NSA much which is why we chose it.

^^I'm not sure why the 4th Amendment etc only applies to US citizens whether at home or abroad, and not just to 'people on US soil' regardless of citizenship so that's an interesting question in itself. It's odd perhaps that the US government makes a particular legal distinction, that is to say an explicit one, between its citizens and those of other countries but in practice it's hardly unusual - or unfair - for governments to act in favour of their own citizens and thus to discriminate accordingly. Two sides of the same coin, really.

You allege 'complete contempt' but where is this being shown? how is it either contemptuous or complete? I'm afraid I don't see why you say these things. I don't think global surveillance capabilities are contemptuous and I think it remains to be demonstrated that they are per se harmful. I've not been harmed by Gmail's scanning of my e-mail texts to enable targetted advertising - I consented to that in any case, and I've seen more useful, relevant ads in Gmail than most anywhere else. Although I'd be happier to be without them, I can't complain when Google is providing me with a FREE e-mail service of considerable quality and utility. Why they collect quite so much unrelated info about me is another matter though, but apparently not a consititutional or legal one (in the US, not so sure about the UK or (other) EU countries where data protection laws are far stronger). But now we're veering off topic... I've also not been harmed by Echelon, Prism, etc. to my knowledge. Can you show where I have?

I guess the issue there is 'data retention' and then who gets to see/access it - but at least as long as its relevant this has been standard, uncontroversial and publicly beneficial practise for decades at least (see: telephone records).

Anyway... I can't agree with the 'teh ebils' reaction coming from so many.

Ignoring the very principles in law these programs are supposedly setup to protect isn't considered harmful, important? The program has become more important than the purpose. :scratch: The program may as well not exist because they aren't protecting their citizens any more, they are using citizens to sustain themselves. The very reason the USA was created no longer applies.

I don't know how to go about saying the many different ways to say the above is self-evident to me. If the process of the USA government is more important than the people that make up that government, I'd agree with the Libertarians for a change. It is no longer "For the people by the people".

I am a foreigner [to the USA] and I'm surprised by your reaction.

These programs were not set up to protect 'principles of law' but to protect the US and its citizens from (the effects of) foreign espionage originally and later from (the effects of) drug dealers, organised crime and of course terrorism, as well as to intercept foreign communications and conduct espionage against foreign state (and other) powers. Par for the course and a necessary job.

It makes no sense to say 'the program has become more important than its purpose' - where's the evidence for this? You don't say. I don't see it. The US (and its allies) continue to be threatened by all the forces mentioned above. Given the power of the internet to facilitate all of these enemy forces, it makes nothing less than perfect sense to both have the whole of the internet under surveillance, both to catch potential enemies and therefore to deny the use of the internet. It's an incredible remit, but the NSA and its partners seem to be pulling it off.

Where there is a legal concern is in the interpretation of the 4th Amendment - and to date no Supreme Court ruling has clarified its applicability to electronic surveillance (that I know of). Even then, if the SC rules the 4A outlawed current programs, I'd say that means the 4A is in error, not the NSA. The NSA has two jobs - spy on foreign powers, and catch our enemies. If the 4A compromises that, I'd question the 4A not the other way around. And I'm not living in the US either, so what do I care on that point?

Which brings me to your last point. I'm also a foreigner (British) and I can only laugh and roll my eyes at the responses to this news, the more so given how many people (everywhere) had no idea what the NSA was doing... it's not nearly so secret or surprising as many make out. If they want to snoop my contact lists etc, I am fine with that since it imposes on me not at all. Once they find I'm not a spy, terrorist or drug dealer, or associated with one, I'll be ignored. Zero harm. It's no different than Gmail's scanning my inbox for keywords for advertising - it's an anonymous, de-personlised service that benefits me. For the life of me I can't see how a dumb piece of silicon can diminish my privacy. And all of this is a price worth paying, such as it is, to get the intelligence they're looking for.

Not only have I not been harmed but, I'm prepared to believe, I am likely to enjoy the benefits of this pervasive warrantless surveillance. At least as long as we can agree that foreign spies, drug dealers, mafiosi, human traffickers(sp?) and terrorists are our common enemies.